The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
Christopher
Chope
Brooke,
Annette
(Mid-Dorset and North Poole)
(LD)
Butler,
Ms Dawn
(Brent, South)
(Lab)
Cousins,
Jim
(Newcastle upon Tyne, Central)
(Lab)
Dorries,
Nadine
(Mid-Bedfordshire)
(Con)
Gummer,
Mr. John
(Suffolk, Coastal)
(Con)
Gwynne,
Andrew
(Denton and Reddish)
(Lab)
Jones,
Lynne
(Birmingham, Selly Oak)
(Lab)
Laws,
Mr. David
(Yeovil)
(LD)
Loughton,
Tim
(East Worthing and Shoreham)
(Con)
Mackinlay,
Andrew
(Thurrock)
(Lab)
Marsden,
Mr. Gordon
(Blackpool, South)
(Lab)
Primarolo,
Dawn
(Minister for Children, Young People and
Families)
Robinson,
Mr. Geoffrey
(Coventry, North-West)
(Lab)
Syms,
Mr. Robert
(Poole)
(Con)
Wicks,
Malcolm
(Croydon, North)
(Lab)
Wiggin,
Bill
(Leominster) (Con)
Chris
Stanton, Committee Clerk
attended the Committee
Third
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 7 July
2009
[Mr.
Christopher Chope in the
Chair]
Draft
Children Act 1989 (Higher Education Bursary) (England)
Regulations
2009
4.30
pm
The
Minister for Children, Young People and Families (Dawn
Primarolo): I beg to move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Children Act 1989 (Higher
Education Bursary) (England) Regulations 2009.
I remind the
Committee that section 21 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008
requires local authorities to pay a higher education bursary to care
leavers who are over 18 years of agethey are referred to in the
Children Act 1989 as former relevant
childrenwho go on to pursue a course of higher
education. The draft regulations set out the arrangements for the
payment of the bursary and deliver the commitment that was made during
the passage of the 2008 Act. There was some debate on the bursary at
that time.
The
regulations provide for four aspects of the arrangements. First, they
set the amount of the bursary at £2,000 in total for each
eligible young person; secondly, they prescribe the meaning of higher
education; thirdly, they specify the arrangements for the timing of
payments of the bursary, whether it is paid as a lump sum or by
instalments; and finally, they specify the circumstances in which
payments can be withheld or recovered by the local
authority.
The
bursary will ensure that those care leavers who go on to higher
education receive additional financial assistance to support them,
removing a barrier to greater participation. Currently, only 7 per
cent. of such young people aged 19 or over go on to higher education
and the Government want participation rates to improve by tackling the
financial disadvantage faced by many students from care
backgrounds.
Research
by Professor Sonia Jackson published in 2005 indicated that students
from a care background tend to leave university with an average of
£2,000 more debt than their peers. Although many local
authorities already exercise their discretion to provide financial
support to care leavers who pursue higher education, by placing this
duty on them to pay eligible care leavers a £2,000 bursary, we
will ensure that no care leaver faces such a financial disadvantage in
future.
In
drafting the regulations, we have been at pains to ensure that the
arrangements for the payment of the bursary are as straightforward as
possible. We have therefore aligned the meaning of higher education for
the purpose of determining eligibility for the bursary with the
definition in regulations made under section 22(1) of the Teaching and
Higher Education Act 1998, which is used for determining eligibility
for other types of financial support for students. We have also ensured
that the payment arrangements set out in regulation 4
are as flexible as possible, to keep bureaucracy to a minimum and to
ensure that the arrangements are determined by reference to the
particular needs of the young
person.
It
is clear from the overwhelmingly positive response to the Department
for Children, Schools and Families consultation on the draft
regulations that they are very widely welcomed. Ninety-one per cent. of
those responding said that the regulations were clear, and the
majority55 per cent.said that the
arrangements for payments gave the right level of flexibility to local
authorities and young people to decide the most suitable arrangements
for the timing and amount of
payments.
When
respondents took the opportunity to comment on the regulations, many of
the points related to the arrangements for the timing of payments. It
was clear that people saw flexibility as a key factor in maximising the
benefits of the bursary. The draft regulations on which we consulted
already provided for full flexibility in that respect, but we have
taken the opportunity in the explanatory notes to underline the point
that bursaries can be paid either as a lump sum or by instalments. That
will be entirely for young people to arrange with the local authority,
based on what is agreed as part of their pathway plan and what is best
for
them.
Andrew
Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): I welcome the draft
regulationsI make that quite clear. Before the Minister
concludes, can she tell us when the consultation period finished and
what the gap was between the close of consultations and bringing the
regulations before Parliament? I shall be candid through you,
Mr. Chope, that my concern is about the Government
repeatedly bouncing legislation through and giving minimal notice to
Members of Parliament, when there could be a much longer time frame in
which the final document is before us. Consideration could be given in
greater depth by Members of Parliament, who would have an opportunity
to consult. Candidly, that is why I ask. I want to know when the
regulations were signed off in the Department and if there was a
significant gap between that and the close of consultation. What was
the reason for the
delay?
Dawn
Primarolo: I am sure that my hon. Friend will bear with me
as a Minister who has only recently taken up the portfolio. I remind
him that when the Billnow the Actwas discussed, all
parts of the House welcomed this. Hon. Members focused particularly on
questions of flexibility and there was some discussion of the amount.
The matter was not contentious. I do not know the full lengthI
think it would have been three monthsbut the consultation ended
on 1 June 2009. That enables us to bring the regulations into force for
September 2009. As my hon. Friend might know, they are backdated for
anyone who was eligible on 1 September 2008. Before my hon. Friend
rises again, I can confirmif that is what he was going to
askthat the money has already been allocated to local
authorities to ensure that the extra financial commitments can be met.
I am happy to respond to further questions at the end of the
debate.
Regulation
4(4) was amended in response to the consultation to make it clear that
local authorities must, as far as is reasonably possible, consult the
young person and give due consideration to his or her wishes
and feelings before a decision is made about the payment of the bursary.
Only two limitations are placed on the timing of payments and those are
minimal. The first is when the young person and local authority agree
that it would be more appropriate to pay the bursary in a lump sum. In
that case, we have prescribed that it should be paid by the end of the
first term, which we believe is a sensible arrangement that will ensure
no undue delay in the payment. The second limitation, should the
agreement be for the bursary to be paid in instalments, is that the
first instalment must be paid during the first term of the course. The
regulations do not therefore set out any requirements about the amount
of each instalment or the number of instalments. As long as the final
instalment is paid before the end of the final year of the course, we
believe that it is for the young person and the local authority to
agree upon the most useful way to provide support to meet individual
needs.
The
regulations build on existing provisions under section 23C of the
Children Act 1989, which sets out the powers and duties of local
authorities in relation to, as I mentioned earlier, young people who
are designated as former relevant children. Section 23C(4)(b) places
the local authority under a duty to give assistance to a former
relevant child to the extent required by his welfare and his education
or training
needs.
The
level of support provided varies widely between local authorities. Some
pay a grant to care leavers who go on to higher education, while others
do not. Through Care Matters funding, we have provided
additional resources to local authorities through their area-based
grant. The higher education bursary regulations will reduce the
differential by providing an additional obligation on local authorities
to provide important financial
support.
4.41
pm
Tim
Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): I add my
welcome to you to the Chair, Mr. Chope, and congratulate you
on your precision timing in arriving for the beginning of the
proceedings.
We
welcome the measures. The Minister is right that, when I was involved
in the Children and Young Persons Bill, which became an Act last year,
the subject under discussion had cross-party consensus, and the fact
that something was going to be done was welcomed. The problem that the
measures seek to address is serious. The Minister mentioned that a
Department for Children, Schools and Families survey found that only 7
per cent. of 19-year-olds from care backgrounds are in full or part-time higher education.
The explanatory memorandum mentions a figure of, I think, 6 per cent.
while other estimates put it lower. That compares with a Government
target of getting 50 per cent. of people into university and
higher education, so the gap of achievement in higher education between
looked-after children and children as a whole is woefully
large.
The
gap in achievement in other educational qualifications is also woefully
large and widening. In 2008, the number of looked-after children
achieving five A to C GCSEs improved from about 8 per cent. to 13.9 per
cent. That is a good improvement, but it must be compared with the
improvement of children as a whole. That improvement includes
looked-after children, which dilutes the figures, but it went up from
around 51 per cent. to 62 per cent. The gap has therefore gone
from 42 or 43 percentage points to 49 percentage points, which is the
statistic that we need to address. Unless we do more to address the
deficit of outcomes for children in care, they will not have the
qualifications to enter higher
education.
Although
we welcome what is being done to encourage those who might be qualified
to go to university, but choose not to, or are deterred from doing so,
because of finances, we must look just as urgently at ways of improving
the educational outcomes of children in care to enable them to be in a
position in which they can consider going to university because they
have the right academic qualifications. It is important to note that
the issue cannot be seen in isolation; it is part of a greater whole
and needs to be given urgent
attention.
Although
we welcome the proposals, I would like to ask some straightforward
questions. Why did the Government decide upon the financial bursary
scheme as their preferred option, and how did they come up with a
specific figure? Certain local authorities operate other schemes.
Dorset, for example, gives a bursary of £500 to children in the
care system for extra-curricular activities, such as music lessons or
additional sports involvement. That is welcome, because looked-after
children miss out on so many of the additional activities for which mum
or dad would normally fork out if they were in a position to do so.
Such funding is too often not available. There is good evidence of
bursaries being used lower down the age scale, but I wonder what other
options were
considered.
Why
was the figure of £2,000 chosen? The Minister mentioned the
research by Professor Sonia Jackson, and that figure was chosen, I
think, because that research showed that children in care had debts
that were £2,000 higher when they left university. That research
is now four years old, and various things have happened with student
maintenance grants and the freezing of them. Is the Minister therefore
still satisfied that the figure is right? How will it be increased,
decreased, frozen or whatever in years to come? Will it be indexed?
Will there be any standard formula, or will it be regularly reviewed?
What ongoing research will she want to see to ensure that that figure
continues to be the right figure to encourage young people to go on to
university? Has she set herselfnot that I am in favour of
targetsany sort of target that she would hope to reach for
young people in care going on to university or higher education, in
order to show that the mechanism has proved its
worth?
It
is not just a question of paying the bursaries. Has the Minister looked
at other projects? For example, the year before last I opened the
Horizons education centre in the London borough of Ealing. That is a
fantastic project, which was conceived by a Labour administration and
is being carried on by the current Conservative one. It has had a
cross-party consensus. The centre is aimed at children in care getting
extra computer training and all sorts of other support after school,
and is run by young people who were in caresome in the borough
of Ealingand have gone to university and come back. Surely,
they are the best young people to know the needs and sensitivities of
young people in the care system.
It is
therefore not a surprise that, without a bursary scheme, 18 per cent.
of young people in the care system in Ealing go on to university or
higher education. That is treble the figure in other parts of the
country, and is
the highest that I have come across, which is an enormous success.
Perhaps the Minister will comment on how she, or her Department, has
looked at other operations that are achieving, without the bursaries,
what the regulations are supposed to achieve, and on how that best
practice can be replicated more urgently in other parts of the
country.
The
Minister said, I think, that the scheme will be backdated to September
2008. Presumably, therefore, the £2,000 level will apply both to
a year ago and to the beginning of term in a few months time.
What happens to those people who started university last year but have
dropped out? Will they be eligible for part of the bursary for the time
they spent at the university or the place of higher education? How will
the scheme apply in future to those students who do not complete their
course? That will be particularly relevant when deciding whether the
grant should be paid out in a job lot at the beginning of the academic
yearin which case it would be a question of being able to
reclaim it if that were deemed to be the desirable actionor in
instalments, which could then just stop.
I gather that
that decision is to be left to the local authorities. What sort of
considerations, therefore, does the Minister think that local
authorities will want to look at? From a cash-flow point of view, I
would have thought that every local authority would automatically want
to pay the bursary in instalments, so that they kept hold of the cash
for longer. Will the decision be geared not to the cash-flow
preferences of a local authority but to whether it thinks a young
person will blow the whole lot in their first month in the union bar,
or on whatever students we may have known in our time have a
predilection for? It would be useful to have some guidance on how local
authorities are expected to deal with that.
There is a
question about age limits and who qualifies. An example would be
somebody who has come into the care system at the age of 17 and a half
and has been in care for literally a few months. They may be in the
last term of their career at school and find themselves, for whatever
reason, in the care of the local authority and likely to remain in its
care. Do they qualify for the full amount on the same basis, or do they
need to have been in the care system for a qualifying number of months
or years?
What about
those children who have been taken into the care system, have already
been assigned a university place and go to university as a child in
care, but who then, halfway through their education, are no longer in
the care system and are the responsibilityalthough over the age
of 18of their birth parents? That will not affect a lot of
people, but there are questions about the flexibility of those young
people coming in and out of the care system, which of course an awful
lot of young people do.
There is also
the question of those relevant children who are over the age of
21not between the ages of 18 and 21, which would be
the normal constituency of children who are care leavers and who
qualify for this bursarywho are still receiving support from a
local authority for education and training, and who will be former
relevant children until the end of their programme of study. That
particularly applies to young people with disabilitiesperhaps
with a learning disability. Does
that mean that a young person who is over 21 and receiving higher
educationon account of various disabilities that make them
still a qualified former relevant childwill still be able to
claim the grant? There are a number of young people with particular
educational requirements and disabilities who will qualify for this
bursary. How will young adults, who have left care at the age of 18 or
21, be notified that they are entitled to this bursary?
I have a few
more concerns. Presumably, this money can be used for anything that the
student wantshe or she can blow it all in the union bar, or use
it for books and other more worthwhile things. What about students who
go to an overseas university? Will the provision apply equally if a
student gets a place at an equivalent university in the EU or
America?
Finally,
the Minister referred to section 23 responsibilities. Can she give some
guarantees and assurances that the grant will not take away from local
authorities section 23 responsibilities? Local authorities must
not be able to claim that the bursary covers costs that they might
otherwise be obliged to provide for: housing assistance and so on. It
must not be a case of giving with one hand and taking away with
another. If she could give that guidance, it would send a useful
message to local authorities as to how the provision should be applied
uniformly to all people who have qualified for it.
I would be
grateful for the Ministers response to those particular and
more detailed points, but we very much welcome the thrust of this
measure. We hope that it leads to a greater take-up of higher education
by suitably qualified children from the care system who have great
potential to take advantage of higher education and university courses,
but have been deterred from doing so purely because of unfair financial
measures and because they cannot rely on the bank of Mum or Dad, as
many of our children may have, or may be able to in years to
come.
4.54
pm
Mr.
David Laws (Yeovil) (LD): I also welcome you.
Mr. Chope, to the Chair.
I thank the
Minister for her description of the purpose of the regulations. We also
broadly support the intention behind the regulations. I draw attention,
as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham did, to the
explanatory memorandum, which includes a lot of striking information
about the gap that there is between the educational experience of young
people in care and that of the average young person not in a care
setting. Only 13 per cent. of looked-after children gain five GCSEs at
grades A* to C, compared with almost two thirds of all children. The
hon. Gentleman also mentioned that just 6 to 7 per cent. of care
leavers go on to university.
All of us
would want be honest about the likely impact of the proposals. By
themselves, the proposals are likely to have a modest impact on those
figures. We will have to do a lot more further down the education
system to address the gap between the performance of children in care
and the rest of the children populationnot just for those
children who go into care early on in their lives, but for those who go
into care in their teens, who are also overwhelmingly likely to have
had a poor experience of education and poor educational support in the
home environment, and therefore to have already
fallen behind in terms of their educational performance. The attempts to
challenge educational disadvantage further down the education system
are likely to have more impact on the life chances of that group of
young
people.
However,
it is understandable that the Government want to do more to look after
the financial interests of such young people, as the state is, in
effect, in loco parentis, and also because such young people may be
particularly deterred by the prospect of taking on large amounts of
debt, which has to be taken on to enter higher education today. There
are three issues that I want to raise on the regulationsthree
clarifications that we seek from the
Minister.
The
first is to reinforce the point that the hon. Member for East Worthing
and Shoreham made in asking about the uprating mechanism for the
bursary. As the Minister will know, there has been quite a high degree
of concern, upset and irritation in the past couple of weeks at the
fact that the Government have decided to index the level of tuition
fees by what I assume is the retail prices index, but have not indexed,
at the same time, the available level of grant. We need to know whether
there is a clear intention on the uprating of this particular bursary,
or whether, particularly in a more constrained financial environment,
the bursary could be left to wither on the vine and go the same way as
other pieces of Government expenditure that have been brought in over
the past 20, 30 or 40 years, including the notorious 25p age addition
to the basic state pension at the age of 80, which meant something to
pensioners when it was introduced in the 1970s, but does not mean a lot
today. We will be grateful to hear from the Minister what the uprating
mechanism is going to
be.
Secondly,
I want to tease out from the Minister a little more about what she
expects the benefits of the £2,000 bursary to be. It is clear
from the regulatory impact assessment that the Government are hoping
that there will be two effects. The first is to reduce the drop-out
rate among the small number of children in care who presently go on to
higher educationsomething like 400 children out of a cohort of
5,800. Secondly, the Government are hoping to encourage participation
in higher education by former care leavers to increase the take-up
rate.
When the
Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families was taking evidence
on that issue in 2007 for the report that it published on 10 March
2008, the Minister at the time saidI confess I cannot remember
who it was, because there has been a degree of change in that area, as
in many othersthat the assumption was that the bursary would
lead to a 10 per cent. increase in the number of young people in care
who go to university. That is quite a small figure in relation to the
number of individuals. We already know that, sadly, only 400
of the 5,800 children from the cohort go on to higher education. The
Minister appeared to suggest that there would be an increase because of
this proposal. However, according to the estimate of the annual costs
of the measure in the impact assessment, that is based on the
continuation of a trend increase of 10 per cent. in care leavers
entering higher education. The Government are therefore underpinning a
trend increase, rather than expecting there to be any impact from the
measure.
That
is interesting because we are trying to understand whether the
Government support the bursary so that the individuals who have already
gone into higher education
are in a more comfortable financial position, which is a worthy
objective, or because they think that young people who are currently in
care will cease to be deterred from going on to higher education by the
costs. Do the Government anticipate an improvement in the staying-on
rate as a consequence of the regulations and, if so, how? The
regulatory impact assessment suggests that that is likely, but as is
often the way, when one probes the detail that underlies the supposedly
impressive statistics, no real assumption is being made. The only
reference to the staying-on rate in the impact assessment is when the
Government assess that the benefits of the proposal will outweigh the
costs if an additional five care leavers obtain degrees. That is a
small number and I would question that economic calculation if we had
more
time.
Finally,
I wish to ask the Minister about the Governments wider
intentions in relation to support for this group of young people. We
have discussed the fact that only 6 to 7 per cent. of children in care
go on to higher education. Despite the sincere best efforts of the
Government and others, we can anticipate that the figure will stay low
for quite a long time, if only because of the nature of the young
people we are talking about. Almost by definition, they are some of the
most challenged young people in the country. Of course, we all want a
lot more to be done, particularly in the earlier years of education, to
help such young people to stay on and to succeed at all levels of
education. However, for the time being, the overwhelming majority of
them will probably find it difficult to do
so.
When
the issue came up in the Select Committee inquiry of 2007 that I
mentioned, a question raised consistently
was,
why
is there no similar provision of a bursary for those going into further
education, vocational training or
apprenticeships?
The
report went
on:
The
Foyer Federation expressed concern that the bursary was only for higher
education
and
did not apply to other groups. National Childrens Home, which
is now Action for Children, said that the
bursary
should
not be restricted to higher education and that financial support should
also be made available for further education
provision.
The
Select Committee got a somewhat sympathetic response from the then
Minister and urged him to consider whether the bursary could be
extended to cover a wider group of young
people.
I
have not had time to obtain the figures on how many children in care
fall under the category of further education, vocational training or
apprenticeships, but I guess that it would be more than go on to higher
education. Although the Minister might well say that the financial
arrangements for higher education and the other areas are rather
different, I suspect that the same financial constraints and pressures
on youngsters who have come out of care will be relevant. I suspect
that a bursary system, or some variant of what the Government are
proposing that would cover post-18 or even post-16, might be of greater
value than the measure that we are discussing. Without drawing the
Minister too wide of the regulations and getting you into trouble,
Mr. Chope, has there been any update in ministerial thinking
since the evidence session in 2007? With those questions and comments,
I make it clear that we support the regulations.
5.5
pm
Mr.
Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry, North-West) (Lab): It is a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Chope, and
doubly a pleasure to participate in a Committee with such evident
cross-party support. I welcome the regulations, as I am sure every
other Committee member does.
It is pretty
obvious why the regulations are required. At 7 per cent., the number of
children in care who go on to university is, sadly, very low. Even
though the objective, or expected outcome of the proposed additional
funding is to increase the number of children in care who go on to
university by only 3 percentage points to 10 per cent., at a modest
cost of £1 million, and even though the briefing provided with
the regulations rather dolefully concludes that the regulations will be
of interest to local authorities but are not likely to generate much
media interest, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will
ensure that they are properly monitored and that we can look forward to
a greater level of success than the modest level at modest cost that
seems to be anticipated in the
regulations.
I
had a couple of other questions relating generally to those posed by
other Members, but it is interesting that although the consultation was
pursued over a good three months and, I imagine, covered all local
authorities, in principle at any rate, only 14 replied. I do not know
what proportion of the total that isI do not have the figure to
handbut it seems low. It therefore seems that one reason for
the low take-up and lack of support may be that the issue has not been
treated as a priority by most local authorities.
It is also
interestingsome reassurance on this point from the Minister
would be helpfulthat the key thing that all the local
authorities wanted was maximum flexibility as to timing and amount.
That is fine, subject to two provisos. First, it should not be used by
backward-looking authorities to delay payment towards the end. I am
sure that that would not be the case; they are more likely to advance
payment as an incentive to move forward. Secondly, the payments should
be genuinely additional payments. That point has been made by
Opposition Members. It is important that the payments should be
genuinely additional and not used to subvent or support payments that
would have been made in any
case.
I
am sure that the Minister will be able to provide those assurances.
There remains, then, only the question of how £2,000 was arrived
at in the first place. That is a modest amount, arrived at, I think, on
the basis of the 2008 figures. Given that the measure will become
effective only in 2010, the general question of uprating must be faced
sooner or later. If the Minister can give us an idea how that will be
effected, the Committee will be
pleased.
We
wish the regulations well and hope that they will succeed beyond the
wildest dreams. Considering the modest cost involved, it is one of the
most cost-effective Government investments that we can
make.
5.9
pm